Revision-Short Essay-Book Review-The True Value of the Value Menu

“A nation’s diet can be more revealing than its art or literature (Fast Food Nation, p. 3)” emphasizes Eric Schlosser’s view of the enormous impact today’s focus on fast food has on our society. In his book he describes the fast food trend from its birth in California to its overtaking of our culture we once had. We are what we eat, and with that we have become a sad society that does not encourage the interaction a family meal. The Golden Arches, one of the most famous symbols on our planet, rivals even the Christian cross in regards to recognition and popularity (Fast Food Nation, p. 4). This should leave each one of us speechless.  Although the American fast-food commercialism, as described in the book “Fast Food Nation” by Eric Schlosser, has had a revolutionary influence on our lives, we need to reduce the dramatic power these corporations have because it affects our economy, our health, and our lifestyles in general.

Eric Schlosser has a wonderful way of describing the start of the fast food era and the great minds who invented the process. Unfortunately profit started becoming the main focus of many of these business owners. Morals, ethics, and other values were neglected to increase the bottom line. Throughout the years we allowed these corporations to control a large part of our food market and food production. These corporations own the farms that produce the foods for them (Food Inc., 2008). Each year they are required to include further mechanical innovation and investment until these farming businesses find themselves in a financially hopeless situation. Encountering the amount of dept to keep up with the high demands of these firms required them to give up their voice to be able to survive. The government does not take a part in addressing this monopolized industry. Why would our nation not encourage a healthy country and why do they not put a stop to this development? We want and need to be able to trust in our political system. Besides the economical impact of this trend, our society is experiencing immediate health effects.

A value meal at McDonalds is full of fat, calories, and does not include any nutrients. But according to Eric Schlosser, it has been chemically created to be very tasteful (Fast Food Nation, p. 9). It is very sad to think that we could possibly eat a product that tastes like chicken, but actually was not even produced by a chicken, rather chemically enhanced to appear to be chicken. Many of the meat products used in the delicious burgers that a chemically enhanced to taste like burgers are produced from animals that arrived dead in the factory or meat that carried diseases. USDA, I believe it was called, controls this? Maybe we should take a close look at the fine print. Mostly the food that is available at these fast food restaurants have more calories than we need I an entire day. It increases our risk of obesity, heart diseases, and many other health problems. Today’s generation is largely obese, mostly thanks to our poor lifestyles. Children are not encouraged to exercise; instead we rather teach them to live a busy and unhealthy lifestyle. Today’s children are absorbed by electronic stimulations and unhealthy eating habits. The sad truth is that purchasing healthy foods for our loved ones is much more expensive as providing unhealthy foods that will harm our children. Unfortunately, some families do not have the luxury of having a choice. Healthy foods are not as profitable and therefore have no priority to be made available to our society. 

The American culture is starting to deteriorate completely. Traditions and family are starting to be completely neglected. Our busy lifestyles do not allow the time to value a delicious meal, further we do not even take the time to slow down while we eat. At one point in our society we valued a meal as a ritual of a family sharing thoughts, experiences, and love. Today, going to a fast food restaurant is as familiar to us as giving parents a hug. Life is not enjoyed or valued anymore, it is taken for granted. Erik Schlosser describes in his book the relationship that established between McDonalds and Walt Disney (p. 35). Everything is created to reach our children. Many children do not grow up sharing a meal at the family dinner table. It affects our families in a much larger scale than most people realize. It affects our lives, the way we socialize, and our quality of life. We literally choose food that potentially is harmful to us over a family shared dinner due to time constrains. The scariest part in the book was that these multinational companies are not even stopped to reach our children in schools. We are losing every tradition prior generations have established. We as parents need to protect our children, set an example, and teach them to enjoy a healthful life.

The book has been a valuable insight into some aspects of American live that we neglected to review. Eric Schlosser wrote an incredible book, revealing the truth objectively, but yet forcing us to form a voice. I believe that the book gives each reader the tools necessary to create an individual opinion and hopefully use the voice that we are said to have to make a difference. If “Americans spend more money on fast food than on higher education, personal computers, computer software or new cars (Fast Food Nation, p. 3)”, we might want to reconsider and invest the money in our children’s education to give them the tools necessary to make a change to this society.  It is always easier to point fingers, but sometimes we do have to realize that we can actually make a difference by standing our grounds and reducing the power these corporations have on our lives. It is in our hands to change and boycott this corrupt system. If we reduce the influence this trend has on our children they might understand the negative impact this fast food society has on our lives. Or we could start by setting an example, and not choose a convenient fast food solution over a time consuming dinner that would force us to spend quality time with our family.

Kenner, R. (Director). (2008). Food, Inc. [Motion Picture]. United States: Magnolia Pictures.

Schlosser, Eric. Fast Food Nation (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2001)

Final Research Draft: Biodiesel’s Catch 22

When you go to the gas pump to fill your vehicle up, carbon dioxide toxins probably is not the first worry that pops into your head. More recently, the first concern of most people is that fast rising dollar sign on the pump. However, modern day environmental groups have been raising the issue of how the dependant use of oil is harming our environment. This is a paramount concern that has lead to the development of biodiesel as an alternative fuel source. The use of biodiesel is a controversial topic. There are many advantages to using biodiesel; it is biodegradable, non-toxic and essentially free of sulfur and aromatics. Biodiesel is also safer to handle and transport, and there are fewer noxious emissions than petroleum-based diesel. A study by the U.S. Department of Energy revealed that a 78.5 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions was linked to the production and use of biodiesel fuel. However, there are also many unseen, substantial consequences to using biodiesel as well. Manuel (2007) warns that biodiesel alternative fuel sources such as corn ethanol and soybean both need significant energy to produce, each have negative environmental consequences, and both could divert corn and soybeans away from the country’s food supply (p. A93). Exactly what the energy balance and environmental impacts are and whether these fuels should be subsidized has been the subject of heated debate among scientists, policy makers, and the public. Although biodiesel has many environmental benefits, it should not yet be used as an alternative to fuel because of its overall cost, increase in food prices, and the over farmed biodiesel crops.

Most everyone has heard of biodiesel, but exactly what biodiesel is may not be common knowledge. There are many different definitions of biodiesel. Biodiesel is a fast growing fuel alternative among fuel producers and consumers. According to Duffield (2007), biodiesel is a “diesel fuel substitute that is made from vegetable oils, animal fats, and yellow grease, which is primarily recycled cooking oil from restaurants and other food preparation facilities” (p. 1029).  This definition encompasses many factors that are included in most definitions of biodiesel, it is an alternative fuel source made from food sources such as vegetable oils and animal fats that can reduce emissions and pollutants that harm the environment. According to Manual (2007), the two leading alternative transportation fuel sources in the United States is corn grain ethanol and soybean and both of these alternative fuel sources be used in standard car and truck engines (p. A93).

There is a worldwide recognized need for the use of an alternative fuel source. According to Du, Li, Sun, Chen and Liu (2008) the global biodiesel industry has developed drastically over the past ten years (p. 331). The leader globally of biodiesel production has been European Union; European Union has increased their biodiesel production from 3.2 million tonnes in 2005 to close to 4.9 million tonnes in 2006 (Du et al., 2008, p. 331). Du et al., 2008 notes that, for European Union, this is a 54% annual growth for biodiesel production and consequently the European Union biodiesel production has increased two fold the last 2 years; it increased from 1.9 million 4.9 million from the years 2004 to 2006 (p. 331). Du et al., (2008) also examined the United States biodiesel production and noted that the United States, while not at the level of the European Union, has significantly increased biodiesel production over the last few years (p. 331). Production in the United States has risen greatly from the years 2000 to 2007; in 2000 biodiesel production was two million gallons and in 2006 biodiesel production was two hundred and fifty million gallons, and in 2007, biodiesel production jumped to four hundred and fifty million gallons (Du et al., 2008, p. 331). Du et al., (2008) also notes “according to the National Biodiesel Board, there are 105 plants in operation as of early 2007, with an annual production capacity of 864 million gal . . . an additional 1.7 billion gal of capacity may come online if current plants in construction are completed” (p. 331). Du et al., (2008) points out that by the year 2016, the Global Biodiesel market is anticipated to make 37 billion gallons which is an average annual growth of 42% (p. 331).

With such an increase of the production and use of biodiesel, it is obvious that there are some definite advantages of biodiesel over diesel. So many different companies and researchers are investing in biodiesel and alternative fuel sources; so, it is only fair that when exploring a controversial topic such as biodiesel, to consider the advantages associated with biodiesel. Balat (2009) states that one important feature of biodiesel is that its chemical properties allow it to be blended at any level with petroleum diesel to generate a biodiesel mix (p. 48). Hunt (2008) states that another advantage of biodiesel is that it is a certain, national energy source which is increasingly important with growing gas costs and is helpful in reducing the United States dependence of foreign oil (p. 48). Developing our own fuel source also does more than just reduce the United States dependence on foreign oil; it also reduces fuel costs and could help stimulate our economy by providing for more jobs as well as potentially becoming a fuel supplier for other nations. Biodiesel also reduces carbon dioxide emissions that are harmful to the atmosphere because it uses clean natural substances that do not release as much toxins when burned, whereas diesel fuel tends to emit these harmful toxins into the atmosphere. Biodiesel, by definition uses natural ingredients and therefore would not emit carbon dioxide.

These advantages are well worth investing in. However there are significant drawbacks to the way biodiesel is currently being produced. The first major disadvantage is the cost. According to Canakci and Sanli (2008) biodiesel is usually made from good quality food-grade vegetable oils, in the United States the main vegetable oil used is soybean oil (p. 434). Canakci and Sanli (2008) further assert that the increased cost of food grade oils is responsible for the increase in the cost of biodiesel and that this situation has become even more problematic because of the increase in the vegetable oil prices in recent years (p. 434). Feedstock is an important aspect of the topic of biodiesel. Feedstock is basic, raw material that is essential for certain industrial processes. The price of feedstock in the mid 1990’s was responsible for 60% to 75% of the total cost of biodiesel fuel and today, around 85% of the cost of producing biodiesel is attributed to feedstock cost. (Canakci & Sanli, 2008, p. 434) Canakci and Sanli (2008) conclude this claim by stating that in order “to become an economically viable alternative fuel and to survive in the market, biodiesel must compete economically with diesel fuel…however, the raw material cost of biodiesel is already higher than the final cost of diesel fuel”, and currently the unit price of biodiesel is one and a half to three times greater than the price of petroleum derived diesel fuel (p. 434).

The high cost of biodiesel is related to the second main disadvantage of biodiesel and that is the high food cost. Boyd (2008) backs this claim by concluding that as biofuel production increases, food prices increase as well as a result (p. 55). According to researchers at the International Food Policy Research Institute, between the years of 2000 and 2007, twenty-five to thirty-three percent of the increase in food costs appeared to be caused by the production of biofuel (Boyd, 2008, pp. 55-56). Hill (2006) also notes his concern for the biodiesel and food cost relationship (p. 11207). Hill (2008) states that biofuel cannot become an alternative for petroleum without consequently influencing food supplies (p. 11207). One surprising claim made by Hill (2008) is that even if all of the United States corn and soybean production were committed to making biofuel, this would only meet 12% of gasoline demand and only 6% of the total diesel demand (p. 11207). Runge and Senauer (2007) go so far as to suggest that biofuels in general may have such a devastating effect on the food supply, that it will increase the cost of food so much that it would make it hard for poor, lower class people to obtain food (p. 41).

While it may reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the last major disadvantage to using biodiesel is that it causes over farmed lands and deforestation. Eric Holtz-Jinienez, the director of Food First, stated that “Brazil is chopping down the Amazon, Argentina is tearing up the prairie, and Malaysia and Indonesia arc chopping down forests and burning up peat bogs for sugarcane and palm . . .and it’s not even about a renewable future . . . It’s about the South growing fuel for the North” (Boyd, 2008, p. 56). Boyd (2008) also stated that there are concerns that cultivating new land in order to grow crops for biofuel production has the potential to in fact increase carbon dioxide emissions (p. 56). Boyd (2008) goes on to explain that according to a study in Science, the production of corn could potentially result in almost two times the amount of ethanol greenhouse gas emissions as the gasoline it replaces (p. 56). Boyd states that the cause of this is attributed to the fact that CO² that has been stored in the soil for millennia gets released into the atmosphere when the grasslands and forests are converted to agricultural lands for biofuel production (p. 56). Traviss, Thelen, Ingalls, & Treadwell (2010) conducted a pilot study that compared the exposure to exhaust and those toxins of employees working at a rural municipal facility; these authors suggest that the exhaust from biodiesel was harmful to those employees (p. 1026). Lands could be over farmed, permanently harming them and preventing fruitful cultivation efforts in the future, could become a problem with using biodiesel. This occurs because biodiesel uses corn and soybean and other grown foods to make the biodiesel and creating enough biodiesel to run vehicles means growing a substantial amount of corn, soybeans, and whatever else would be used to make the biodiesel. Growing all these products just for American consumer consumption needs already requires a vast amount of land. Image how many more crops would need to be planted to feed America and provide biodiesel materials. This would undoubtedly lead to an over farmed agriculture system.

Overall, the current disadvantages plaguing biodiesel production far outweigh the advantages. There is hope though. Canakci and Sanli (2008) have pointed out that in order for biodiesel to thrive in the world and become a realistic and practicable alternative fuel source, biodiesel has to cost less than diesel (p. 434). In order for consumers to really consider the use of biodiesel it needs to be economically feasible for them. Manual (2007) agrees that there is potential for the biofuel industry, he states that the next move to be made is for there to be a biofuel crop that only needs low chemical and energy inputs and can give a return of greater energy and positive environmental affects (p. A95). As discussed throughout this paper, this is clearly not the case. Biodiesel has a real potential to be just as environmentally harmful as regular fuel, just in different ways that may not be as obvious as carbon dioxide pollution. Biodiesel, and biofuel as a whole, is currently significantly more expensive to produce than diesel, the subsequent affect on food cost is another detriment of biofuel. Canakci and Sanli (2008) offer some future implications and suggest that if biofuel is to become an economically feasible alternative fuel source than its high price of production needs to be lowered and a relatively easy way to do this is to use low-cost feedstock’s such as used frying oils, animal fats, soapstocks and greases (p. 434). This will not only decrease the production costs of biodiesel but also lower the affect that biofuel production has on food prices because it will not require corn and soybean crops. This domino affect also continues because since using low cost feedstock’s, the products will not require as much crop production, over-farming and deforestation will not occur and less pollutants will harm our environment. While biodiesel is a potentially advantageous alternative fuel source in that it can reduce carbon dioxide toxins, bring in revenue for the United States, reduce dependence on foreign oil and provide jobs in our country, biodiesel is still in its relatively new stages of discovery and there are still several problems with biodiesel’s impact on the environment and food supply that need to be seriously considered and corrected before biodiesel is used as an alternative fuel source.

 

References

 

Balat, M. (2009). Prospects for worldwide biodiesel market development. Energy Sources Part B: Economics, Planning & Policy, 4(1), 48-58. doi:10.1080/15567240701423951.

 

Boyd, R. (2008). The hunt for a sustainable biofuel. Earth Island Journal, 23(2), 55-58. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

 

Canakci, M., & Sanli, H. (2008). Biodiesel production from various feedstocks and their effects on the fuel properties. Journal of Industrial Microbiology & Biotechnology, 35(5), 431-441. doi:10.1007/s10295-008-0337-6.

 

Du, W., Li, W., Sun, T., Chen, X., & Liu, D. (2008). Perspectives for biotechnological production of biodiesel and impacts. Applied Microbiology & Biotechnology, 79(3), 331-337. doi:10.1007/s00253-008-1448-8.

 

Duffield, J. (2007). Biodiesel: Production and Economic Issues. Inhalation Toxicology, 19(12), 1029-1031. doi:10.1080/08958370701664890.

 

Hunt, S. (2008). Biofuels, Neither Saviour nor Scam. World Policy Journal, 25(1), 9-17. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

 

Hill, J., Nelson, E., Tilman, D., Polasky, S., & Tiffany, D. (2006). Environmental, economic, and energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 103(30), 11206-11210. doi:10.1073/pnas.0604600103.

 

Jenner, M. (2007). Biomass energy outlook. BioCycle, 48(11), 53. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database

 

Manuel, J. (2007). Battle of the biofuels. Environmental health perspectives, 115(2), A92-A95. Retrieved from Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition database.

 

McCormick, R. (2007). The impact of biodiesel on pollutant emissions and public health. Inhalation Toxicology, 19(12), 1033-1039. doi:10.1080/08958370701533509.

 

Naylor, R., Liska, A., Burke, M., Falcon, W., Gaskell, J., Rozelle, S., & Cassman, K. (2007). The ripple effect: Biofuels, food security, and the environment. Environment, 49(9), 30-43. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

 

O’Neill, G. (2006). The biofuels promise: updated thinking. Ecos, (133), 22-25. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database

 

Runge, C., & Senauer, B. (2007). How biofuels could starve the poor. Foreign Affairs, 86(3), 41-53. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

 

Tenenbaum, D. (2008). Diversion of crops could cause more hunger. Environmental Health Perspectives, 116(6), A254-A257. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

 

Traviss, N., Thelen, B., Ingalls, J., & Treadwell, M. (2010). Biodiesel versus diesel: A pilot study comparing exhaust exposures for employees at a rural municipal facility. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association (1995), 61(3), 1026-1033. doi:10.3155/1047-3289.60.9.1026.

 

 

 

Research Final Draft-Nature Knows Best: Green Space Can Help ADHD Symptoms

Most people enjoy walking through a park on a sunny day or hiking a woodland trail through the forest and taking in the sights, smells and sounds of nature.  However, for children suffering from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) studies are showing that simply playing in the park or hiking in the woods could possibly help lessen or relieve their ADHD symptoms.  Most children diagnosed with this disorder start their day with a dose of Ritalin or similar stimulant drug.  Although the use of stimulant drugs have proven beneficial for severe cases of ADHD, studies are revealing that a lack of time spent in natural green spaces, especially for those living in large metropolitan areas, could contribute to childhood ADHD, because these children have little to no contact with nature, no easy access to simple free play within green, natural settings, and are more restricted from the benefits of regular physical exercise.

The diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorders has increased at an alarming rate, followed by the prescription of psychostimulants.  The developmental effects on a child’s growing brain has yet to be adequately studied, something which the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry led by Jaak Panksepp, PhD is trying to remedy.  Dr. Panksepp is convinced that one reason for the increasing incidences of ADHD may be the diminishing availability of opportunities for preschool children to engage in natural self-generated social play.  Panksepp’s 2007 pre-clinical work indicated that play can facilitate behavioral inhibition in growing animals, while psychostimulants reduce playfulness.  Whether intensive play can actually alleviate ADHD symptoms requires further evaluation. However, if play time has the slightest chance of replacing play-reducing psychostimulants and developing healthy pro-social minds, it is certainly deserving of further study.

Other similar research positively links our mental, physical, and spiritual health directly to our association with nature.  In his book, Last Child in the Woods, author Richard Louv (2008) reveals how thoughtful exposure of children to nature can be a powerful form of therapy for those with ADHD and other disorders.  As these studies suggest, it could be assumed that, just as we need good nutrition and adequate sleep, we may also need contact with nature to maintain good health.

Researchers have found that children with ADHD experience a greater reduction of symptoms when they play in a park full of grass and trees than on a concrete playground. The University of Illinois Landscape and Human Health Lab’s 2004 research of ADHD has shown that performing activities in green settings can reduce children’s ADHD symptoms.  In an initial Midwestern-based survey, the Lab found that parents of children with ADHD were more likely to nominate activities that typically occur in green outdoor settings as being best for their child’s symptoms and activities that typically occur in indoor or non-green outdoor settings as worst for symptoms. In a subsequent nationwide survey, parents again rated leisure activities—such as reading or playing sports—as improving children’s symptoms more when performed in green outdoor settings than in non-green settings.

Green space is very hard to come by, however, for many children living in dense urban areas. Even as early as 1970, the U.S. Census Bureau found that more people live in urbanized areas than in rural.  In the book, Drosscape: Wasting Land in Urban America, author Alan Berger (2006) brings to light how the phenomenon of horizontal urbanization is forming faster than scholarly theories can be published to explain them.  The movement from densely populated city centers to newly urbanized ground is rapidly growing. It is estimated that more than 62 percent of the American population lives in newly urbanized areas (Berger, 18).  So much land has been swallowed up by miles and miles of houses, strip malls, office buildings, and golf courses. This type of land waste is so quietly instrusive we hardly notice. What is sacrificed to the newly urbanized area is the green space that once existed there.

Berger suggests that decisions made over the next few years in our country will have a significant impact on pollution, infrastructure, congestion, and quality of life. Resource preservation and the availability of water may ultimately define the limits of growth in many parts of the nation. If cities do not make placeholders for green space or land banks within it interiors, it only encourages expansion at the perimeter.

Not all is lost however, as many cities are making strides in incorporating more green spaces into city centers.  One of the best examples of this effort is the city of Chicago.  Under Mayor Richard Daly, the city began reclaiming its 165-year-old motto, “City in a Garden.”  Chicago launched a campaign to not only preserve open space, but to re-create wildlife habitats, greenways, and other natural lands with the goal of making Chicago the greenest city in the nation (Louv, 258).  This kind of effort by one city gives rise to the hope that many other cities will follow suit.

Children who are at risk in heavily urban areas can also learn about active living and healthy eating by being taught how to plant fruits, vegetables, and flowers.  An educational program detailed by author D.M.P. McLennan (2009) entitled Ready, Set, Grow! implemented in Ontario, Canada, in a classroom which was located in the downtown area of this large urban public school system.  These children were considered at risk because of the services they received to compensate for what was lacking in their home lives, such as a breakfast program and homework club to help keep them in a safe environment after school.  Through this program, these children were able to experience nature with all of their senses: by seeing the rainbow of colors in the variety of fruits and vegetables, tasting how wonderful healthy produce can be, by smelling the richness of the earth, listening to songs, poems, and stories about eating and living healthy, and feeling the dampness of the earth with their fingers as they helped to make life grow.  These children also carried this knowledge home and shared it with their families. The success of this program provides evidence that by encouraging our children to become engaged in gardening and the earth at a young age, they can develop a life-long appreciation of the outdoors.

These types of programs are arguably as important as the standards-based instruction and assessment that are being stressed so strongly in today’s schools.  McLennan emphasizes that while there is a time and place for literacy and numeracy in student achievements, at the same time the aesthetic, play-based, and exploratory opportunities for children must also be considered to create healthy, well rounded individuals.

A natural benefit of play is exercise. Exercise can help release pent up energy and ADHD sufferers in particular need opportunities to release their energy. This is especially evident in the hyperactive or sensory seeking child. It, in turn, enables the child to settle down and approach work with greater ease.  Exercise is also a regulator. Deep pressure exercises like hugging or wrestling and heavy work like carrying books are both calming and organizing.  Exercise also improves concentration, decreases depression and anxiety and promotes brain growth (Jaffe, 2007).  Individual sports or team sports such as basketball and hockey, which require constant motion, are good options for ADHD children.  Martial arts training, tae kwon do, and yoga can help enhance mental control as they work out the body.

Raye-Anne Cook, in her article Exercise and the ADHD Child (2008) states that intense exercise increases the blood flow and also increases levels of endorphins and acetylcholine in the brain, both of which appear to alleviate the symptoms of ADHD.   The symptoms of ADHD can be different for each child and these, along with the child’s individual personality traits, need to be taken into consideration when choosing an exercise to suit the child.  Conversely, watching TV and playing computer games do not regulate a child the way movement and heavy work does.  The first study to link television-watching to ADHD was published in April 2004 (Louv, 31-33).  The Children’s Hospital and Regional Medical Center in Seattle maintains that each hour of television watched per day by preschoolers increases by ten percent the likelihood that they will develop concentration problems and other symptoms of attention-deficit disorders by age seven.

This disturbing information about television is only part of the larger environmental and cultural changes taking place in our lifetime, which is the rapid move from a rural to a highly urbanized culture.  In an agricultural society, during times of exploration and settlement or hunting and gathering which has taken place over most of mankind’s history, energetic boys are prized for their strength, speed, and agility.  Even as late as the 1950s, most families still had some sort of agricultural connection (Louv, 15).  Many of these children would have been active doing physically constructive activities, such as farm chores or leisure play like splashing in the swimming hole, climbing trees, or racing to the sandlot for a game of baseball.  All of this unregimented play would have been steeped in nature.

Since we cannot simply or easily return populated, developed land with natural, forested land, especially one that is a safe area for our children in which to play, there is an alternative.  Playgrounds designed to simulate a natural woodland, called Playscapes, can offer a creative solution to a natural play environment for children.  Author Rusty Keeler (2008), in his book, Natural Playscapes: Creating Outdoor Play Environments for the Soul, provides an outline and suggestions for communities and groups wishing to design playscapes in their neighborhood.  Many varied materials can be used in the design of a playscape, virtually whatever is available naturally in the local region.  For example, coastal communities could use large chunks of driftwood for balancing and seating areas.  Rather than using concrete or asphalt, the ground surfaces in a playscape are varied creating walkways from stones, bricks, and woodchips.  Not only do varied surfaces provide visual variations in the playscape, they also suggest different ways for children to move their bodies, encouraging them to move at different speeds with different actions, using different muscles.

Keeler offers compelling study-based benefits for installing playscapes rather than traditional playgrounds.  The greater amount of nature exposure, the greater the benefits: Children with nature nearby their homes are more resistant to stress; have lower incidence of behavioral disorders, anxiety and depression, and have a higher measure of self worth. Children with views of and contact with nature score higher on tests of concentration and self-discipline.  Children who play regularly in natural environments show more advanced motor fitness, including coordination, balance and agility, and they are sick less often. Play in outdoor environments stimulates all aspects of child development more readily than indoor environments (Keeler, 294).

It has been theorized that an increase in the diagnosis of ADHD may be that children no longer have enough opportunities to play.  This can lead to the assumption that the expectations of our educational system and the intolerance of play in children may be leading to an increase in the diagnosis of ADHD (Panksepp, 2007).  Most parents and educational systems do not recognize the profound value of natural play, which is the kind of play within nature that encourages joyful and emotionally-fulfilling education.

According to the National Institute of Mental Health (2008), current medical opinion acknowledges that ADHD is a very real condition with long-term adverse effects on academic performance, vocational success, and social-emotional development. It should not be suggested that Ritalin and stimulant drugs should never be used to treat a child with severe ADHD symptoms.  However, the evidence supports that time spent in nature can improve attention and other psychological aspects of health.  Nature can help children develop powers of observation and creativity, as well as a sense of peace and being at one with the world.  Recess, sports, physical fitness, or simply playing in the outdoors and nature can have a significantly positive impact on children’s health and well being.  Parents, caregivers, and educators must all be encouraged to get our children active and out into the natural environment.

References:

Berger, Alan. (2006). Drosscape: wasting land in urban America. New York, NY: Princeton Architectural Press.

Burgess, Kelly. (2008). The great ritalin debate: treating adhd with medication. iparenting.com. http://www.childrentoday.com/articles/addadhd/the-great-ritalin-debate-719.

Cook, Raye-Anne. (2008). Exercise and the adhd child. Remedial and special education: educating parents, therapists, doctors, teachers, facilitators and caregivers. http://www.remspeced.co.za/ articles/20060308_0001.htm.

Edmunds, L. (2010). Let’s move.  Parks and Recreation, 45(9), 15-16. Retrieved October 22, 2010 from EBSCOhost database.

Faber-Taylor, A., Kuo, F., & Sullivan, W.C. (2001). Coping with add: the surprising connection to green play settings. Environment and Behavior, 33(1), 54-77.

Hayward, P. (2010). Quality and quantity. Parks and Recreation, 45(9), 10-10. Retrieved October 21, 2010 from EBSCOhost database.

Ingram, M. (2007). Biology and beyond: the science of “back to nature” farming in the united states. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 97(2), 298-312.  Retrieved October 21, 2010 from EBSCOhost database.

Jaffe-Gill, Ellen, et al. (2007). Parenting a child with ADD/ADHD Help Guide. http://www.helpguide.org/mental/adhd_add_parenting_strategies.htm.

Keeler, R. (2008). Natural playscapes: creating outdoor play environments for the soul. Redmond, WA: Exchange Press.

Karlson, I., & Simonsson, M. (2008). Preschool work teams’ view of ways of working with gender-parents’ involvement. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36, 171-177. Retrieved October 21, 2010 from EBSCOhost database.

Louv, R. (2008). Last child in the woods: saving our children from nature-deficit disorder. New York, NY: Workman Publishing Company, Inc.

McLennan, D.M.P. (2009). “Ready, set, grow!” nurturing young children through gardening. Early Childhood Education Journal, 37, 329-333. Retrieved October 21, 2010 from EBSCOhost database.

Panksepp, J. (2007). Can play diminish adhd and facilitate the construction of the social brain?. Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 16(2), 57-66.  Retrieved October 21, 2010 from EBSCOhost database.

Schottelkorb M.D., A., & Ray M.D., D. (2009). Adhd symptom reduction in elementary students: a single-case effectiveness design. Professional School Counselors, 13(1), 11-22.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute of Mental Health. (2008). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (adhd) (08-3572). Bethesda, MD: Government Printing Office.

Revised Essay #2

Problems with air quality in big cities are expected, but air pollution problems in Fairbanks, Alaska, are not expected. Over the last decade Fairbanks air quality has been noticed by the EPA as one of the country’s most polluted cities during the winter months. Part of this problem is the increasing amount of homes using wood heat as an alternative to high priced home heating fuel. Although wood burning has become an important heat source in Alaska, incompetent users cause an avoidable amount of pollution because they use inefficient or outdated wood burning equipment, they improperly use their equipment, or they do not correctly prepare their wood before it is burned.

On a cold day in Fairbanks, wood stoves and outdoor wood boilers are filled with wood to counter the winter’s bite. In the winter months Fairbanks experiences among the most extreme pressure inversions, and one of the lowest wind conditions in the world. This type of weather phenomenon traps the cold air and pollution close to the ground. Despite this, the residents of Fairbanks are forced to use cheaper alternative fuel sources because of the high price of home heating fuel. Nobody wants to use a large portion of their hard earned money just to stay warm. Fairbanks residents are paying between $5,000 to $10,000 dollars per year according to the 2010 Home Heating Survey. But as Fairbanks residents heat their homes with wood fuel, the city becomes the most polluted area in the state. This is something that the city of Fairbanks must reduce.

The pollution problem that the city of Fairbanks faces is easy to define but difficult to solve. The growing popularity of burning wood for heat has introduced many new users to wood stoves and outdoor wood boilers. These tools can be efficient ways to heat a home in the cold Alaskan winters, but if used incorrectly, they can also be inefficient tools that cause a large amount of pollution. Ned Rozell (1995) stated that green Birch wood has between 40-60% water, and if the wood is not correctly split and allowed to dry it will burn inefficiently. If the wood is wet, than more than half of the energy generated is used to evaporate the water and is not turned into heat. The remaining heat created by the wood is not enough to heat up the stove, which would normally burn most of the carbon in the smoke as heat. This unburned smoke is emitted into the atmosphere as pollution which collects under the thermal inversion. Newer wood stoves have catalysts that combust the remaining carbon in the wood smoke. But this catalyst will only work if the wood is dry enough to convert a large part of the potential energy in the wood to heat. When the air flow in the stove is turned to low, and the catalyst is engaged, the wood will have a high burn time that raises the pollution efficiency of the stove to near 83% (“Alternative Energy,” n.d., para. 12). The second most popular wood burning device in Fairbanks is the outdoor wood boiler. It is used to heat water for a home, but is terribly inefficient. It works by heating water, which is circulating in metal tubes, with wood heat. Blake (2006) describes that when the water reaches a certain temperature the air supply to the fire chamber is lowered so that the water is not over heated. Since these systems are made to handle even wet whole logs, which are easy to prepare, that is what most users burn. Outdoor wood boilers create much more pollution than a wood stove, which can be seen by the smoke clouds that collect around properties that use this type of device to heat the water for their home. Homes that use a wood stove do not create smoke banks that their community members have to ingest.

To combat the pollution caused by wood burning devices, the state of Alaska and other states are starting what is called the “Wood Stove Initiative,” which will regulate wood burning pollution in the community (“Particulate Matters,” 2010). The details of the proposal are still being figured out by politicians and city leaders but the real solution is simple. Older wood stoves create more pollution than newer stoves, and should eventually be replaced. Though this is a good solution, replacement takes money and the focus can start with education to more efficiently use what wood burners currently have. If new users are given simple tutorials on how to properly prepare their firewood and how to properly use their wood stoves, this would help eliminate some pollution for all types of wood burning devices. Tutorials would take limited funds and can be done by local wood burning retailers. Outdoor wood boilers create much more pollution than the average wood stove creates, and must not be used anywhere in the community. This can be done with lobbying to local government officials to enforce strict regulation or to in add in some sort of government subsidy into the new “Wood Burning Initiative,” for trading in an outdoor wood boiler for a more efficient stove. These types of subsidies had been successful in the past for trading in inefficient wood stoves. But for now, local communities can educate and openly voice their opinions to those that are using an outdoor boiler, to stop their current activities. In an article from the Anchorage Daily News, Rosemary Shinohara (2010) stated that Fairbanks has seen a rise of 6% in breathing-related illnesses in each of the last 3 years. This is a cycle that must stop for the sake of community health.

The unnecessary pollution caused by wood stoves is detrimental to the health of community members and for the environment. The solution to this problem is simple. It is composed of educating people on how to properly prepare wood fuel and use of wood burning devices, and lobbying community leaders for the correct policy change. The difficult part of this proposal would be to lobby local government to regulate outdoor wood boilers so that they do not pollute communities at such a high rate. The pollution problem in the Golden Heart City is worth taking seriously for the health of all its residents and visitors. Without a change in air quality conditions, there will be more health problems for residents in the years to come. Fairbanks is a beautiful place to live, and it is important that it also becomes a healthy place to live.

References

Blake, Uni. (2006, Feb 14). Outdoor Wood Furnace and Boiler Pollution. Retrieved from http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/environmental/200602outdoorwoodfurnaces.html

Particulate Matters: Wood Stove Undermines Local Control. (2010, Sep 5). Retrieved from http://www.newsminer.com/view/full_story/9381705/article-Particulate-matters–Wood-stove-initiative-undermines-local-control

Rozell, Ned. (1995). Wood Burners Unlock Energy with A Match. Alaska Science Forum. Article #1249. Retrieved from http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF12/1249.html

Shinohara, Rosemary. (2010, Aug 31). Fairbanks Air Pollution Linked to Increased Hospital Visits. Retrieved From http://www.adn.com/2010/08/30/1431777/fairbanks-pollution-visits-to.html

Sierra Research. 2010 Fairbanks Home Heating Survey. [Data set]. Retrieved from http://www.co.fairbanks.ak.us/airquality/Docs/Fairbanks_2010_HHSurvey_Final.pdf

The Encyclopedia of Alternative Energy and Sustainable Living. (n.d.) Retrieved from http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/C/AE_catalytic_wood_stove.html

 

Essay#3-Book Review: America, Let’s Move (Revision)

Revision–original essay under required word count.

Americans grow up with the belief that we are part of the greatest nation on Earth. A countless number of other countries see our America as the land for opportunity. With that image, we have the power to influence other nations’ governments and citizens. As a prominent country, we are obligated to lead by example to make changes for the better of all mankind. We have a responsibility to live up to the standards at which others view us and at which we claim to be. Although we may not fully understand the magnitude of our actions, Thomas Friedman proves in Hot, Flat, and Crowded that Americans need to make changes because we are outsourcing our jobs, overusing resources, and advancing global warming.

Friedman opens the Hot, Flat, and Crowded explaining the relationships between America and certain other countries. He depicts how several factors have weakened the bonds we have with them over the past decade. Tightened security measures at home and abroad have negatively affected the way we are viewed by and able to interact with other nations. In fact, several examples are given in his book depicting just that. One of which is the new “jail-like” consulate that was moved out of the inner city of Istanbul, Turkey for protection of those who work there. While it may have met its goal of protecting Americans, it also secluded them. The consulate became inaccessible for the citizens of Turkey and erased any interaction between the American diplomats working there and the Turks (3-4). Young gives this and several other specific examples to show how America used to relate with other countries and how we have changed our interactions dramatically over the past few years. This sets the tone for the rest of the book in which Friedman proves how important America’s impact is on the rest of the world which is the underlying solution to every global problem he presents.

Friedman explains his reasoning behind why America’s jobs are being increasingly outsourced to other countries. He believes that advances in technology and several global political events have made everything accessible to those who would not have dreamt about the opportunities before, even ten years ago. With the gate open to the rest of the world, countries and “individuals,” as he emphasizes, can do business with the rest of the planet. Those who were poor before now have the option to make money in ways and multitudes they never dreamt of before. Through this money making, the newly prosperous individuals want all the luxuries that come along with the fast life. These luxuries use energy; more energy. “This…is stroking an unprecedented competition for energy, minerals, water, and forest products…” (page 31). This phenomenon will continue to grow exponentially, just as all things that come with the internet do. More money uses more energy which requires more money and the cycle continues. He adds that he has been able to see the changes firsthand. Telling his own personal experiences throughout various regions of the world certainly furthers the credibility of his points.

This new competition for natural resources is only one of the reasons Friedman uses to account for the global overuse of resources. Another main source of this overuse, as he depicts, is the global population growth. There is in fact an issue with overpopulation that needs to be addressed and Friedman not only proves this, but also gives personal accounts of the effects it is having on global economy, politics, and environment. He is able to give truth to the issue by stating population growths in numbers of various cities and countries as well as discuss the diminishing supply of resources such as food and water. The hard statistics listed are inarguable. It is difficult to find a better way to prove a fact than with the facts, which is the method Friedman uses to prove population growth is indeed occurring.

It is clear throughout the book that Friedman is a believer in the Global Warming phenomenon. I am sure he enjoyed and agreed with Al Gore’s film, “An Inconvenient Truth.” Young explains his reasoning behind why he believes many nations’ actions, including America’s, are furthering global warming. He blames factors such as livestock gases, car emissions, and industrial pollutants. His contention is to sell to the reader that global warming can be prevented and to convince his reader to be proactive in its prevention. In the series of paragraphs toward the end of chapter one “Where Birds Don’t Fly,” he repeatedly asks the reader “What kind of America would you like to see,” followed by descriptions of many benefits that going green would have on the country (23-24). Throughout these explanations, he triggers the reader’s emotions and causes he or she to actively think about how the country and the world is harming itself and how it could benefit from “Code Green.” Friedman also asserts that changes have been avoided for many years in the white house. He uses events and changes throughout America’s history, most of which fall within the last four decades, to demonstrate the lack of urgency placed on these issues by our government. He shows the various presidential offices have made little to no effort in solving any environmental problems.

With the use of solid facts, events, strong opinions, and even a few visual aids, Friedman is able to achieve his goal in Hot, Flat and Crowded. I share many of the opinions in the book, but even those I may not have agreed with before, I do now. Most who read this book will also be convinced. With a perfect balance of explaining the issues separately and showing their relationships with one another, he is able to prove his theories and make them difficult to argue with. In essence, Friedman shows the reader through and through that the matters of overcrowding, overusing and global warming are real and in the now. More importantly, he attests that Americans must lead the path of solving the issues and the rest will follow.

References

Friedman, Thomas L. Hot, Flat, and Crowded. 1st. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2008. Print.

Research Final Farm Animals Overrun

Humans have become reliant on hormone enhanced meats for cheap and abundant food. Most agriculture production for animals has been using hormone altering medicines. The changes that are made through injections include faster muscle and growth development, resulting in more products in shorter time periods. Beef specific breeding of steers produce more meat than dairy steers, “This is shown by the improvement obtained for beef over dairy breeds in live weight of 12%, while the improvement of carcass and meat produced of 24% and 33%, respectively” (Clarke, 2009). The main animals included are poultry, cattle, and pigs. These altering effects are the reason why eggs, chicken, milk, beef, bacon, pork and much more are relatively cheap to other fresh products. “I’d bet my first grandchild that 250 million Americans out of 300 million are being exposed to six or more pesticides a day,” says Charles Benbrook, chief scientist at the Organic Center, a pro-organic think tank in Boulder, Colorado (Schardt, 2007). But, beside the benefits of cheap foods, they are causing health problems and environmental issues. To stop the unhealthy lifestyle, we must find alternatives and follow a more suitable solution for this dilemma. Although hormone injected animals produce more products faster, we need to slow consumption and production because there are negative effects associated with consumers, environmental issues, and practice alternatives to end suffering from the cheap abundant products.

One of the effects of consuming hormone altered food products are the advanced maturity rate in females. Young girls who consume above average amounts of the enhanced products have a tendency of maturing faster than girls who don’t eat as much of the same products. Studies have proven this idea; puberty has been acquired at a younger age from eating more of the hormone products. “Early puberty in girls has been found to be associated with a higher risk for breast cancer. Height, weight, diet, exercise, and family history have all been found to influence age of puberty” (Consumer Concerns About Hormones in Food). The effects the hormones are also believed to increase chances of breast cancer development. Young girls are greatly affected by the consumption of the enriched products, especially from health concerns with breast and other forms of cancer. Females have been known for developing such diseases from eating the cheap products. “The recent paper by Lukacs (2008) regarding the roles of fertility and agriculture in sex differences in dental caries rates is important in that it highlights the role of increased demands on women’s reproductive systems in the decline of oral health among women” (Grant, 2009). The products are found everywhere, from restaurants to gas stations; the unhealthy product is almost unavoidable. For females to negate these products, chances are slim since the only way to eat uncontaminated fresh foods would be to shop organically at markets.  One out of eight women is affected from the disease of breast cancer in general, that can be reduced if not so much hormone products were eaten. “Dairy cow growth hormones are linked to cancer in humans. The number of residual hormones found in cow milk is as much as 10 times higher than non-treated cows. Several studies have linked these high levels of residual hormones to an increased risk of breast, colon, prostate and lung cancer in humans” (Serving Food with a Side of Growth Hormones).  Females are not the only ones affected by the products; males have to be cautious of health issues also.

Males are known to have problems under the circumstances where mothers while pregnant consume above average amounts of hormone injected foods. Smoking, drinking and drugs are all bad for a pregnant women and fetus’, one thing to include is too much hormone enriched products.

“Our study suggests that semen quality may be influenced by food intake. Men with poor semen quality had a more frequent intake of some food items that may adversely affect semen quality or that act as carriers of deleterious products to the reproductive system. Our results are consistent with poor semen quality associated with a higher intake of products that may incorporate xenobiotics, mainly xenoestrogens or certain anabolic steroids 34 S.H. Swan, F. Liu, J.W. Overstreet, C. Brazil and N.E. Skakkebaek, Semen quality of fertile US males in relation to their mothers’ beef consumption during pregnancy, Hum Reprod 22 (2007), pp. 1497–1502. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (16)and. The use of these compounds in the food industry results in an increased total level of xenoestrogens and sex steroids in processed foods, such as meat or milk, whose intake contributes significantly to daily exposures” (Mendiola, 2009).

Male infertility is growing; one reason that is responsible for the over consumption of hormone-injected food. According to a study,

The scientists compared sperm concentrations and quality among the men born to women in the high and low beef consumption groups. They found that, Sperm concentration (volume) was 24.3 percent higher in the sons of mothers in the “low” beef consumption group. Almost 18 percent of the sons born to women in the high beef consumption group had sperm concentrations below the World Health Organization threshold for sub fertility about three-times more than in the sons of women in the low consumption group (Swan, 2007).

Infertility is a common problem; see it on the television and news. People must be aware of the consumer effects from the enriched products, is some way or form, over eating them will cause harm.

Both Blue Vinyl and My Year of Meats show how globalization uses women, technology, minorities, and animals to feed the insatiable modern desire to consume and to appropriate otherness for profit and power; both also draw on humor to convey their activist messages. They expose the intersection of environmental degradation that harms animals and humans at the levels of manufacturing, consuming, marketing, and disposal of materials, emphasizing through narrative, irony, and pastiche the “commodity chain” that begins with resource extraction and ends with the purchase, use, and disposal of waste in both meat and vinyl production (Fish, 2009).

 

Fish is an author who read and researched work of Judith Helfand and Daniel Gold for further explanation and effects of hormone injected meats. Aside from harmful consumer effects, mass production of these products causes environmental issues. Environmental issues are a growing concern for planet Earth and a huge contributor is mass production of farm animals. These mass production farms are a growing threat to the environment because it is causing excessive pollution. A survey in Canada has concluded that, “The median WTP (willing to pay) was a 20% premium for the environmental group compared to a 10% premium for the general population” (Belcher, 2007). From the information, people can infer that if the general population is more environmentally aware of how much of an impact farm animals were on the atmosphere, results may differ greatly. Farm animals that are hormone enhanced eat excessively in order to maintain the altered growth rate and size. From the excessive eating, the animals have extreme amounts of solid waste. While composting the solids is an almost perfect solution, it is also more time consuming and costly to farmers who are looking for cheap and fast solutions. Instead of composting solid waste, the animal manure is thrown into rivers and lakes, which contributes to several problems. According to Joshua Monaghan of King Conservation District this method of disposal creates problems such as, “nitrogen loading, decreased oxygen, contamination of shellfish beds, and damage to fish habitat and food sources” (Monaghan). One easy solution may benefit one thing, but may harm another, farmers must find the easiest and cheapest method to dispose the waste in order to aid in environmental safety. Another important environmental issue is something called the gassing effect.

The gassing effect is a problem caused from the over populated farm animals passing gas in excessive amounts to the atmosphere. It is proven that global warming is happening, one cause that is contributing is farting farm animals. According to Anra Kennedy, “One of the gases found in farts and burps is called ‘methane’. A certain amount of methane in the atmosphere is natural, and is a good thing. Along with other so-called ‘greenhouse gases’ methane collects in the sky and traps warm air around our planet” (Kennedy, 2005). This has become a major problem for the entire planet; mass production of agricultural animals is causing unfixable damage.

These farm animals require an abundant amount of water usage. The water is used for hydration and some types of necessary cleaning. The water is also used for healthy grass growing on the farms. The amount that is required is extreme; water is pulled from rivers and lakes. With numerous amounts of farm land bunched together, the lakes and rivers are brought to simple streams and ponds. This change in land creates a transformation in climates, downstream of the farming, water streams that become, eventually raise the climate temperature of that region because there is not the same amount of cooling at river and lake locations. Although people use fertilizers for farming, the land properties greatly change from mass agriculture farming.

 

The land properties will change over time from the continuous nutrient draining. Year after year hundreds even thousands of farm animals flood fields of grass, grazing and eating every last green piece of grass. This process done yearly will eventually cause the fields to completely drain every nutrient of the field. Soon there will be more land to be cleared of trees and wildlife homes destroyed for more farmland because the farm animals ruined the grasslands already dedicated to them. Land property changes include the climate health. With more fields committed to agriculture and less wildlife lands and more destroyed trees, the climate will lose the oxygen/nitrogen to carbon/oxygen ratio. In other words, in those regions there won’t be enough oxygen to breath with way too much carbon dioxide being put into the atmosphere. This lack of oxygen can destroy smaller plant life in those regions, and each species has its role in climate health.

Scientists are also concerned about the environmental impacts of hormone residues in cow manure. Growth promoting hormones not only remain in the meat we consume, but they also pass through the cattle and are excreted in their manure. When manure from factory farms enters the surrounding environment, these hormones can contaminate surface and groundwater. Aquatic ecosystems are particularly vulnerable to hormone residues. Recent studies have demonstrated that exposure to hormones has a substantial effect on the gender and reproductive capacity of fish, throwing off the natural cycle (Artificial Hormones).

In result there would be a chain reaction for the negative health in the environment. The environmental issues are a result of mass production of farm animals and alternatives must be found and enforced.

To resolve the issue of over populating farm animals we must find alternatives to resolve the problem. “In addition to the use of hormones, many avenues are still open for increasing productivity in meat and milk production, including breeding programs, regulation of rumen fermentation, optimalization of the balance between the indirect and direct feeding of the ruminant organism proper, and disease control” (Velle). The over population has become an issue,

Cows raised on grass simply take longer to reach slaughter weight than cows raised on a richer diet, and the modern meat industry has devoted itself to shortening a beef calf’s allotted time on earth. ”In my grandfather’s day, steers were 4 or 5 years old at slaughter,” explained Rich Blair, who, at 45, is the younger of the brothers by four years. ”In the 50′s, when my father was ranching, it was 2 or 3. Now we get there at 14 to 16 months.” Fast food indeed (Pollan, 2002).

Organic products are one way to solve these issues. If farms were enforced to become organic only, there would be a fraction of the health problems associated with meats. Naturally the prices of organics are higher so consumers would decline from such high consumption, which would then benefit the environmental problems. Although, one must be careful as which product they buy, natural and organic are perceived as different product types.

 

Milk containing rBST is produced using bovine growth hormones that increase milk production in cows. Thus, milk labeled rBST-free does not use these hormones. Organic milk, in addition to not containing rBST, is also produced from cows that have not been fed grain that has been grown using pesticides or herbicides. Non-labeled milk contains rBST and is not organic. Thus, there are three levels of naturalness (Anstine, 2007).

 

With the declination of farmed animals, the excess area could benefit by shifting to vegetation agriculture. Vegetarianism is a quality choice to reduce the negative effects of hormone enhanced meat products. It would create improved overall health. Meat products are not a necessity; people can avoid meat products with vegetarianism and supplement replacement, such as vitamins.

Hormone injected agriculture is causing damage to numerous things and in numerous ways. With the welfare of the planet declining, additional issues that can be avoided should be resolved. Reconsidering the agriculture focus for production and consumers would be greatly appreciated from the environmental and health point of viewpoints. Simple lifestyle and agricultural changes should be made to accommodate the damage that has already been done.

 

Anstine, J. (2007). Organic and all natural: Do consumers know the difference? Journal of Applied Economics & Policy, 26(1), 15-28. Retrieved from Business Source Premier database.

Artificial Hormones. Retrieved from http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/hormones/

Belcher, K., Schmutz, J., & Germann, A. (2007). Beef with environmental and quality attributes: Preferences of environmental group and general population consumers in Saskatchewan, Canada [electronic resource]. Agriculture and human values, 24(3), 333-342. Retrieved from Agricola database.

Clarke, A., Evans, R., Berry, D., Kenny, D., Drennan, M., & McGee, M. (2009). Intake, live animal scores/measurements and carcass composition and value of late-maturing beef and dairy breeds [electronic resource]. Livestock science, 126(1-3), 57-68. Retrieved from Agricola database.

Cornell University (2000) Consumer concerns about hormones in food. Retrieved from http://envirocancer.cornell.edu/Factsheet/Diet/fs37.hormones.cfm

Fish, C. (2009). The toxic body politic: Ethnicity, gender, and corrective eco-justice in Ruth Ozeki’s “My Year of Meats” and Judith Helfand and Daniel Gold’s “Blue Vinyl.” MELUS, 34(2), 43. Retrieved from MasterFILE Premier database.

Grant, W. (2009). Regarding “Fertility and Agriculture Accentuate Sex Differences in Dental Caries Rates”. Current Anthropology, 50(6), 961-962. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

Kennedy, A. (2005). Cow Farts: Global warming or a load of hot air? Retrieved from http://www.show.me.uk/site/news/STO873.html.

Mendiola, J., Torres-Cantero, A., Moreno-Grau, J., Ten, J., Roca, M., Moreno-Grau, S., et al. (2009). Food intake and its relationship with semen quality: a case-control study. Fertility & Sterility, 91(3), 812-818. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.01.020. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier Database.

Monaghan, J. Manure disposal guide. King Conservation District. Retrieved from http://www.kingcd.org/manure_disposal_factsheet.pdf.

Pollan, M. (2002). Power steer. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/31/magazine/power-steer.html?scp=1&sq=power%20steer&st=cse&pagewanted=2

Schardt, D. (2007). Organic food worth the price?. Nutrition action health letter, 34(6), 1. Retrieved from Agricola database.

Serving food with a side of growth hormones. Retrieved from http://www.foodservicewarehouse.com/education/health-safety/growth-hormones.aspx

Swan, S.H, Lui, F., Overstreet, J.W., Brazil, C., & Skakkebaek, N.E.(2007). Growth hormones fed to beef cattle damage human health. Retrieved from http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_5543.cfm

Velle, W. (n.d.) The use of hormones in animal production. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/X6533E/X6533E01.htm

Research Final Draft: Don’t Panic, Be Organic

When going shopping for groceries, what is the deciding factor on which fruit or vegetables should be bought? Is it whichever is on sale, or possibly which is the healthiest? What about livestock and produce? Does it matter whether it is organic or not? For the majority of people who take care of their family’s grocery shopping, buying organic is not on their mind or in their budget. Instead, with the economic crisis we are in, the ever-present thought is which item will give the most bang for a buck. The downfall to this line of thinking is the many chemicals and pesticides injected into both the soil and the food which is then contributing to our failing health and ever-changing environment (Spedding, C. 2006). Although chemicals and pesticides can be profitable, going organic is healthier because of the environment, soil, and health benefits.

 Before the benefits of organic growing for the environment as well as eating for health is discussed, we need to understand what exactly the environment is, what pesticides and chemicals are and finally what organic truly means. To start, what is the environment? There are many different ways to explain what this is. There is the environment, which is essentially all of earth. However there is a word that can bring the environment closer to home, to where someone lives, where they work, and even to where they play, eat and sleep. More precisely, this is known as the ecosystem. It is not something to muck around with, seeing as our lives depend on its lasting qualities. Electing to go organic can have a colossal influence on our ecosystem as well as our personal health. Because our personal health and ecosystem are so intricately entwined, it is tremendously imperative to respect it if we want the ecosystem to respect our health.

Now what are pesticides? Pesticides are a classification of chemicals that eradicates pests from growing in ecological areas (Ecological, 2008). Pests can be found as bacteria or viruses in livestock, or they can be known as insects, worms, and even microbes which are commonly found in crops (Pesticides, 2010). Essentially, the requirement for pesticides is the consequence of another organism triggering damage or death to other entities like livestock, grains or produce. The problem with pesticides is that, while ridding the area of abhorrent creatures, it is also instigating harm to good soil and, in turn, the environment (Fishel, 2010). This can, as mentioned before, directly impact each of our lives and the way we live them both in the present and the future.

Since we have a brief definition of our environment – or specifically our ecosystem – and of what the chemicals and pesticides do; the word “organic” needs to be defined next. How farmers choose to grow and process agricultural products, such as fruits, vegetables, grains, dairy and meat, is how their crops and livestock are defined, either as organic or not organic. With the higher demand of organic livestock and crops, numerous farmers have learned to rotate their fields of crop more often, thus encouraging soil and water conservation as well as a reduction of pollution and increase in health benefits. When farmers choose to grow only organic produce and meat, they skip the terrible pesticides, or typical methods to fertilize, control weeds and prevent livestock disease (Mayo, 2008).

 Instead of using the conventional methods of sprays, antibiotics and pesticides, they use straight manure and or natural composts with or without manure for crops and other natural remedies for livestock. Compost is full of every day leftovers, such as manure, remnants of fruits and their peels as well as natural brush like leaves and sticks. These are put into a pile away from buildings or in a specified container meant to help swift decomposing. The time it takes for each factor to decompose varies on the item, but once it is has disintegrated into a nice fertilizer it is put on the grounds where pesticides and chemicals would normally be used. This fertilizer might not get rid of all bugs, but it will enrich the soil instead of stripping the nutrients out of it. The fumes are not toxic to humans or animals (although they might not be something anyone would want to take a big whiff of), hence less of an impact on the environment, the soil and human health.

As stated, those who have ever farmed in their lives understand the need to not tire out the field. Generally there are working fields and resting fields. Degradation of the soil is exaggerated with all the use of pesticides and chemicals. The more deprived of good nutrients soil is, the worse the produce will be. In turn, if the produce is ridden with pesticides, and the livestock eat it, they will be exposed to all sorts of dangerous chemicals that we will eventually be exposed to when eating them. Not only are we being exposed by the produce, but also by the meat and the fumes coming from each field of livestock and produce. Going organic has the potential to limit every one of these problem areas by a significant amount. The only drawback is the cost.

 The cost of going organic can seem daunting, but once it has been broken down, it might not seem quite as horrendous (Magkos, F. 2006). By buying organic, there is a guarantee of very little to no pesticides, chemicals, or other unwanted things added to all food. Organic also means there are absolutely no genetically modified organisms, also known as a GMO (Advantages, 2010). Genetically modified organisms are something to be worried about – it is when scientists modify whatever food with another type of food, such as apples (Lauridsen, C. 2010). Apples are not necessarily supposed to be as big as they normally are, which is why many people shy away from the smaller ones, which are organic, because they are not used to the size, or lack thereof. Apples are generally waxed to give that shiny sheen we are so accustomed to. Over seventy five percent of all processed, non-organic food in America is full of genetically modified organisms (Rodale, 2010). This fact is extremely scary, seeing as the American Academy of Environmental Medicine have found evidence of kidney, liver, infertility, accelerated aging, and digestive failure with so many genetically modified foods going into our systems. Yes, Americans tend to do what they want now and worry about the consequences later. This way of thinking needs to be halted in its tracks, no matter the issues of extra costs or a lack of every kind of produce and their genetically modified counter-parts.

 For many people, the cost of organics is not worth it. Their opinion is simple: I am not sick, so why do I need to spend more money on the same food? Besides, there are not nearly as many choices in the organics department as there are in the general produce and meat sections. This fabrication of knowledge is incredibly false. As many cancer survivors, or even those who have died from cancer, very well know that they did not have any inkling as a prelude to their attack. Generally, they just went in for annual tests, not expecting a single thing. With that said, even if we do not feel bad does not mean our bodies are not fighting back something fierce (Spedding, 2006). Neurotoxin pesticides, endocrine disruptors, herbicides and other chemicals are not something to be messed with – non-organic foods have these heinous things in abundance (Rodale, 2010). Since non-organic food can be preserved with chemicals and then flown in from wherever they are being grown seasonally, we have the allusion of many different kinds of fruits and vegetables. Organic food is not genetically modified, which means not every kind of plant or grain can be produced year round or shipped from faraway countries. Instead of focusing on what we do not have in organics, we should be focusing the many opportunities we have to make healthy meals with in season and naturally organic produce. “For any environmentalist to not be a raving organic supporter is outrageous,” we need to understand that the cost of going organic is worth preserving our ecosystem (Rodale, 2010).

With the cost of organics so high, another option is to pick certain items to be organic, such as the “Dirty Dozen.” Now what exactly are the dirty dozen? A research project was conducted by a group of scientists who tested all sorts of fruits and vegetables for their levels of toxicity (Bauer, J. 2006). These scientists found twelve fruits and vegetables that were the most detrimental to our health. These were then dubbed “the dirty dozen,” which are apples, cherries, grapes (imported), nectarines, peaches, pears, raspberries, strawberries, bell peppers, celery, potatoes and spinach.

On the other side of that, there are “the clean fifteen”. These same researchers found the fifteen fruits and vegetables that basically do not need to be bought organic, for they had an extremely low toxicity. This list of “the clean fifteen” consists of onions, avocados, sweet corn, pineapples, sweet peas, mangos, asparagus, kiwi fruit, cabbage, eggplant, cantaloupe, watermelon, grapefruit, sweet potatoes and sweet onions (Pou, J. 2010). These foods were found to be the least covered in pesticides. Most nutritionists would claim that these fruits and vegetables are completely unnecessary to buy organic, especially when there is a budget. Because pesticides and other hideous species tend to hide in the fatty areas of animals and their bi-products, when it comes to poultry and dairy, the need to be organic is even more present.

It must be said, however, that going organic is not the end all beat all when looking for a weight loss regime. There still are organic sugars, organic candy, and just plain unhealthy organic items. When perusing the organic row of food, before selecting an item, be sure to check the ingredients on each label for the exact contents (Pollans, M. 2010). Food items can have the label “FDA Organic” while only being roughly ninety percent organic. Here now is another good reason to always read labels. Unless every ingredient has the word organic before it, it can be assumed that there is roughly ten percent that is not organic.

Eating foods that are not laden with chemicals and are not genetically modified might not impact any of the digestive system, the immune system and life span, but there is still a chance they could (Hall, A. 2010). The theory is that the actual health content from a regular grown food object to an organically grown food object is barely different, it is simply the outside – where the pesticides and chemicals, or even wax, have been concentrated, that is considered possibly dangerous. There are many studies going on currently about the actual effects, be that good or bad, of genetically modified and pesticide laden food. Until these studies have been completed, which normally take twenty to thirty years for a good nutrition study to be compared and constructed, it must be said that erring on the side of caution and buying organic might possibly be the better route to take (Agency, S. 2009). Organic food is more likely to decrease the toxic intake each human has throughout their days (McCullough, M. 2010).

There are numerous issues with buying regular pesticide infested, genetically modified and chemical sprayed foods. In the long run, spending a little bit more on organic produce is worth saving our health. The whole point of buying organic is to help save our environment, allow the soil to breathe, and to contribute to a healthier lifestyle. Organic food does not “destroy the soil, which destroys the carbon-capturing capability of our planet, which destroys our atmosphere and causes global warming,” with that said, we should not be skipping out on the benefits of organics for the cheapness of GMO foods, especially when considering the extending costs to our health and environment (Rodale, 2010). With all the research backing up buying at least some organic food, like the “dirty dozen,” what will you choose during your next grocery trip?

Advantages and benefits of Organic Food. (2010, February 6). Natural Health Blog & Website | Natural Health Remedies, Cures, Products, & other  Topics. Retrieved October 12, 2010, from http://naturalhealthezine.com/advantages-of-organic-food/

Agency, Standards Food – Organic review published. (2009, July 29). Food Standards Agency – Homepage. Retrieved October 12, 2010, from http://www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2009/jul/organic

Bauer, Joy. (2006) Organic food: is it worth the extra money? Today Show, http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/13737389

Ecological Risk Assessments | Pesticides | US EPA. (2008, August 13). US Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved October 12, 2010, from http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ecosystem/ecorisk.htm#what

Fishel, F. (n.d.). Pesticides and the Environment. Agriculture. Retrieved October 11, 2010, from extension.missouri.edu/explorepdf/agguides/pests/G07520.pdf

Hall, A. (2010, May 28). Organic food has no extra health benefits, say researchers. Retrieved October 12, 2010, from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1281948/Organic-food-extra-health-benefits-say-researchers.html

Lauridsen, C. (2010, September 13). Darcof > Research > The consequences of genetically modified crops for organic farming in Denmark. Retrieved October 12, 2010, from http://www.darcof.dk/research/health.html

Magkos, F., Arvaniti, F., & Zampelas, A. (2006). Organic Food: Buying More Safety or Just Peace of Mind? A Critical Review of the Literature. Critical Reviews in Food Science & Nutrition, 46(1), 23-56. doi:10.1080/10408690490911846.

Mayo Clinic. (2008, December 20). Organic foods: Are they safer? More nutritious? – MayoClinic.com. Mayo Clinic medical information and tools for healthy living – MayoClinic.com. Retrieved October 12, 2010, from http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/organic-food/NU00255

McCullough, M. (2010). Planet Organic (1993-2010). Canadian Business, 83(9), 25. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier Database

Pesticides. (n.d.). Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment. Retrieved October 12, 2010, from http://www.cape.ca/toxics/gmos.html

Pollans, M. (2010). Bundling Public and Private Goods: the Market for Sustainable Organics. New York University Law Review, 85(2), 621-657. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

Pou, Jackie. May 13, (2010) The dirty dozen and clean 15 of produce. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/health/the-dirty-dozen-and-clean-15-of-produce/616/

Rodale, Maria. Organic Food: Cutting Through The Confusion. (November 6^th, 2010.) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/06/cutting-through-the-organ_n_779392.html

Spedding, C. (2006). Organic food production. (Cover story). Biologist, 53(4), 187-189. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

Research Paper Final Draft: The Island Made of Garbage

‘The Pacific Garbage Patch’

Littering has become a huge issue in the world now. Our world is becoming more polluted as the days passed by around the globe. Trash is building up around the world-changing as the months change. All of these issues are because of us, humans not caring enough about the world. We are destroying the world that we live in every day, more and more each day. Although humans may not be the only reason for polluted ocean they are the main reason because of the plastic in the oceans, marine animals dying, and contaminated water.

The Pacific Garbage Patch was discovered by a man who goes by the name of Charles Moore. Charles Moore is a man from Long Beach, California that grew up in the water. His family was a water family always sailing to different places. Charles Moore was actually a woodworking and finishing business owner that sailed in his free time. Mr. Moore discovered the Pacific Garbage Patch on the way back from a yacht race in 1997 from Hawaii. To be more pacific August 3, 1997 was when Captain Charles Moore discovered the garbage patch by accident. “Every time I came on deck, there was trash floating by” said by Captain Moore. “Mr. Moore said that because the sea of rubbish is translucent and lies just below the water’s surface, it is not detectable in satellite photographs.”You only see it from the bows of ships,” he said. (Marks, K; Howden, 2008). Since that day he has dedicated his time to research the patch and find ways to prevent and solve the issue. The great patch is so huge that it’s considered the largest landfill in the world but one other it on the water instead of land.

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch is almost completely self-explanatory. We get it’s located in the Pacific Ocean but how big is the patch is the question. Patch can range in all different types of patches such as big, medium, or small. According to different literature the patch is from Hawaii to California and is bigger then any landfill that’s on land. Hawaii also has trash around it call the Eastern and Western Pacific Garbage Patch.  The western patch is located between Hawaii and California also (Program, N. M. 2010). The eastern patch is located off the course of Japan. The approximate size is two full states of Texas and it estimated to get the size of Africa (Hoshaw, L 2007). In reality everybody of water on this earth has a trash patch to some degree.

A known way how the trash gets into the ocean; is people who are sailing or working on the ocean throw it overboard either on purpose or accidentally. The trash is able to collect because the ocean circulates slowly in that area. The little wind and high pressures cause slow circulation.  Of course trash has always been thrown into the ocean but it was easier broken down back then. Now that trash has become lightweight and durable that break down process takes a lot longer and more toxic. It’s reported that The Pacific Garage Patch weighs about 3.5 million tons (Reid, David 2007).

Littering is another way the ocean is contaminated with garbage. People litter all over the world. A great deal of that littering makes its way into the ocean over time by getting washed through drain storms, into the rivers and stream than float into the ocean ( Amaral, K 2010). Just littering on the street eventually hurts other parts of the world. Basically everyone should try not to litter anything it’s not hard to put trash into a trash can.

Sea turtles tend to eat plastic bags because they look like jellyfishes. As marine mammals swim through the ocean that is filled with trash they become stuck in fishing net, plastic bags, and much more.  Many of these items get stuck in the animal’s intestines. Fish typically eat microscopic organisms for their nourishment. It’s thought that Beluga Whales are being diagnosed with breast cancer now because of the chemical in the water from the trash. Birds fly over the ocean to find food to eat. Marine birds typically eat fish that have eaten the microscopic plastic particles. They also scope up plastic that they mistake for fish. The plastic pieces usually look like fish eggs, small crabs, and other things of nourishment to them (Amaral, K 2010). It has been reported the 267 different species of animals have eaten from the garage patch ( Reid, David 2007). At least 50,000 fur seal die every year because of being tangled in the garbage patch. Something animals shouldn’t be experiencing.

Human are affected by ocean pollution because as the plastic breaks down chemicals are released in the ocean water. Humans are affected by the sea food that they eat, through fish, crabs, shrimp, clams, and much more marine animals that come from the sea. Fat cells are affected by Endocrine Disruptor Chemicals (EDCs) that plastic is made with. It’s believed that Endocrine Disruptor Chemicals (EDCs) can cause fertility problems, brain development, and chromosome abnormalities. Humans are causing health problems on themselves because of the toxins that are getting put into the ocean. Some interesting item thrown into the by humans are Light bulbs, bottle caps, toothbrushes, Popsicle sticks and tiny pieces of plastic, each the size of a grain of rice, inhabit the Pacific garbage patch (Hoshaw, L 2007).

There’s not much publicity about this issue. I have talked to people personally and they have no clue such a thing existence. The issue has been known since 1997, that was thirteen years ago.  I know I wouldn’t have learned about if it wasn’t for this environmental English class. There are needs to be more articles, news coverage, and so much more to get this environmental hazard out into the public awareness. Usually no one goes in that area because of the slight wind problem. In the recent couple of year more and more awareness have been put on the great pacific garbage patch.

Media coverage has increased so much the there’s hundreds of articles, websites, commercials, and even gone as far as an information interview on The Oprah Winfrey Show (Oprah 2009). The increased attention has been brought by mostly scientist but also by ordinary people who want to improve the environment.

In 1987, a law was passed that it’s against the law to dumping plastic into the ocean. Then on December 31, 1988 a law was passed against ships and land-based operation throwing plastic into the sea. Plastics aren’t the only thing by law that isn’t allowed to thrown into the ocean. Other items like glass, paper, metal, and crockery are not allowed.

There are no plans of cleaning up the Pacific Garbage Patch. It’s thought of that clean up would because more harm than good for the ocean and especially ocean life. Clean up would affect the microscopic ocean life. Like everything else once you affect part of the chain it’s downhill from there.  Those microscopic organisms also called plankton that is eaten by other ocean life that is usually traps in or on the trash.  The way garbage is cleaned up mostly today is performing beach clean ups from trash being washed up on shore or left by visitors.

Hundreds of years ago plastics were able to sink to the bottom of the ocean that would dissolve over time. Now a day’s that’s not so simple.  Plastic is built to be durable and long-lasting.  It can take up to four hundred year for plastic to break completely down in the ocean.  As it breaks down harmful chemicals are released into the water. Alternative things to use are paper based, cardboard, or glass made items. Recycling is always a great method of decreasing waste also.

Project Kaisei is a nonprofit organization that wants to increase the awareness of marine debris and solutions to prevent and clean up the debris. In 2008 Project Kaisei was started by three people who’s purpose was to bring notice to the amount of plastic that had built up in the last 50 years. That purpose eventually turned into wanting to decrease the amount of plastic and marine debris into the ocean. They have plenty programs to inform people about the issue and ways to help the problem. Project Kaisei way to solve the problem is to identify the problem and research it, develop ways to solve the problems, and put those ways into action. If you can’t help physically there’s the option of making a donations towards the Project Kaisei mission. To keep updated on all the new information discovered, there’s a place to sign up for email alerts (Marker, 2010).

Oceana was started in 2001 by “The Pew Charitable Trusts, Oak Foundation, Marisla Foundation (formerly Homeland Foundation), the Turner Foundation and Rockefeller Brothers Fund.” Oceana mission is to restore the oceans to original state before the plastic contamination that it has revolved into today. They want the ocean to be healthy and rich place it once was. Oceana has identified the problem as people destroying the oceans by pollution and taking more than we put back the ocean. Oceana focuses on decreasing the pollution, promote responsible fishing, protect marine life, and preserve land. For public awareness they use celebrities, foundations, corporate donor and any other donations.  (Oceana, 2010)

The Scripps Environmental Accumulation of Plastic Expedition or also known as SEAPLEX is a group of researcher trying to find discover how the Pacific Garbage Patch became to be. To be more pacific their objective are to answer the following questions: How much plastic is accumulating, how is it distributed, and how is it affecting ocean life?”. The group of doctoral students, research volunteers from Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego went out on the ocean to research the problem in 2009.  Marine animal sighting decreased as they enter the Pacific Patch. The animals they did see usually on plastic. After the voyage the group reported that there’s not an island of trash but it floats within a certain mile range. An ideal was proposed to create an island of the plastic in the ocean that would be called “Recycled Island”. The problem with that proposal is that it would kill far more marine life then desired. Since everyone cannot be in the group to research the plastic patch there’s always the option of donating to Scripps’ (SEAPLEX 2010).

A celebrity by the name of Ed Norton has dedicated his self to bring public awareness on the use of plastic bags and the damage that it causing to the ocean. Usually plastic bag never truly break completely down into something that’s not harmful to the world. Plastic bags are made with petroleum that makes the bag biodegradable. An alternative method to using plastic bags is using canvas bags that can be used repeatedly. He is now working on getting plastic bags banned all over the world. There are currently banned in China, Australia, Bangladesh, Ireland, Italy, South Africa and Taiwan. Mumbai (formerly Bombay) and India (Lowy, J 2007). In the United States Portland, Oregon has put a fee on using plastic bags. A few other places are Texas, New Jersey, and Iowa to name a few. California so far has rejected the ban on plastic bags.

Pollution has extremely changed the ocean from it original state. It has taken years, hundreds of years to get the ocean into the condition it is in today, so of course to successfully change it will take even longer. Pollution has been a problem for a long time and that needs to change. Pollution is horrible for the land, humans, animals, and water. A change is wanted to increase a healthier place for marine animal to live and also for human’s health. Marine animals need a safe place to live and eat and that should be the ocean. Humans created this problem; so humans can fix it and prevent it from occurring again someday. It’s our responsibility to change and improve the world.

Works Cited

• Amaral, K. (n.d.). Plastics in Our Oceans. Retrieved November 1, 2010, from http://www.whoi.edu/science/B/people/kamaral/plasticsarticle.html
• Hoshaw, L. (2009, November 10). Afloat in the Ocean, Expanding Islands of Trash. p. D2.
• Le, Phuong. (2010, June 14). Emerging Ocean Concern: Tiny Plastic Particles.
• Lowy, J. (2007). Plastic Left Holding the Bag as Environmental Plague. Seattle Post-Intelligencer , 1-4.
• Maker, C. G. (2010). Retrieved September 20, 2010, from Project Kaisei: http://www.projectkaisei.org/
• Oceana. (2010). Retrieved September 30, 2010 from http://na.oceana.org/
• Program, N. M. (2010, February 27). Local Beach Global Garbage. Retrieved November 4, 2010, from De-mystifying the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch”: http://www.globalgarbage.org/blog/index.php/2010/02/27/de-mystifying-the-great-pacific-garbage-patch/

• Barretto, Fabiano. (2010, February 2). De-mystifying the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch”.
• Barry, Carolyn. (2009,  August 20). Plastic Break Down in Ocean, After All – - And Fast.
• C, Tiffany. (2010,  May 3). A World Away of Plastic.
• Casey, Susan; Segal, Gregg. (2007, October 7) Our oceans are turning into plastic…are we? pgs. 1-9
• CBS News. (2010 April 10). “Plastic Soup” Found in Atlantic Ocean.
• CDNN –Cyber Diver. (2007, November 4). Plastic Ocean: The Great Pacific Garbage Patch.
• CNN News. (2010, June 8). Rowing across an endangered ocean.
• Dautel, Susan L. (2010).Transoceanic Trash: International and United States Strategies For the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. pgs. 1-30

• Marks, K; Howden, D Asia-Pacific Correspondent. (2008, February 8). The world’s rubbish dump: a garbage tip that stretches from Hawaii to Japan.
• National Geographic’s Strange Days on Planet Earth. (2010) Career in Science, Charles Moore.

• Reid, David. (2007, November 21). Earth’s Eighth Continent.
• SEAPLEX. (2010). Retrieved December 7, 2010, from Scripps Institution Of Oceanography, UC San Diego. : http://sio.ucsd.edu/Expeditions/Seaplex/
• Sohn, Emily. (2010, August 19). Mystery of the Missing Ocean Plastic.
• The Great Pacific Garbage Patch. (2009, April 22). Retrieved Dec 7, 2010, from Oprah: http://www.oprah.com/world/Ocean-Pollution-Fabien-Cousteaus-Warning-to-the-World
• Walsh, Bryan. (2009, August 1). Expedition Sets Sail to the Great Plastic Vortex.

Research Paper Final Draft – Saving the environment one cup at a time

What’s the big deal? So what if millions of Americans each day consume the delicious, hot, caffeinated beverage we all know and love as coffee. Drinking coffee is a national pastime and more than 50% of Americans drink coffee everyday (Rome, N. 2002). It acts as our fuel source to kick off our day and serves as a pick me up for later. Clearly, we like the stuff. Whenever you could use a cup of Joe, just stop by your nearest restaurant, café, grocery store, office break room, or on the go coffee-cart and you have got a delicious cup of coffee made to order. So what is the big deal? Well, it’s true you can order up a coffee any way you like, but have you ever thought about rather than “holding the whip”, holding the cup instead? Each individual who purchases a coffee to-go every day will end up contributing to about 23 pounds of garbage a year to our nation’s landfills; (Dunn, N. 2008). Although throw away coffee to-go cups are convenient and widely used in offices as well as coffee stands, they in fact contribute to unnecessary waste and harm to our environment because many of the cups are not recyclable, extreme amounts of energy and resources are put in to manufacturing the cups, and once piled high in landfills the cups will contribute more to global warming by emitting methane gas  all of which could be completely avoided if everyone was committed to using reusable coffee cups or travel mugs.

Thanks to caffeine, coffee is one of our most addicting drugs with about 50% of Americans drinking it daily; (Bangalore, S., Parkar, S., & Messerli, F. 2007). Out of the 100 billion cups of coffee that Americans consume each year, 14.4 billion are served in disposable cups. This is enough to stretch around the earth 55 times and weighs up to 900 million pounds; (Carbonrall.com. 2008) With that said, recycling has become extremely popular and very beneficial. Things like paper, plastic, and aluminum are being separated and recycled among businesses and homeowners. It seems simple enough; let us just throw the coffee to-go cups into the mix, right? Wrong. Aside from the fact that many people are not committed to recycling, the truth is most of the coffee to-go cups contain a plastic lining that basically waterproofs the inside of your cup to keep your beverage from leaking and your cup from crumbling. This plastic lining, otherwise known as polyethylene, keeps the cups from the hope of ever being recycled; (Betts 2008). While the plastic coating ruins the recycling process for coffee to-go cups, so does contamination of the cup that comes in contact with beverages which restrict its recyclability; (The Recycle Gal, 2010). It is important to mention that efforts to come up with a suitable recycling process for products containing polyethylene-type polymers are in the works, although polyethylene itself is still one tough cookie. Removing it from the product it’s attached to is extremely difficult; (Sovová, K., Ferus, M., Matulková, I., Španěl, P., Dryahina, K., Dvořák, O., et al. 2008).  Those who are concerned and should be concerned about the environmental impact of disposable cups should worry less about how to recycle the disposable cups, and instead focus on using reusable cups or travel mugs. Why should one be up in arms about implementing a recycling process for something that could easily be replaced with a reusable product that could outlast the life of a cat? Cats have nine lives after all. The solution is to understand the difficulty in recycling the convenient to-go cups, and make a conscious effort to avoid the use of disposable cups. Reinforce the concept/practice by bringing into play a classy travel mug, that not only has a great purpose, but shows some of your own personality. More businesses should take it upon themselves to raise awareness and educate the public about the problems with recycling disposable cups. They could encourage others to do something about it specifically, by enforcing the use of a reusable cup. Chances are, most people are unaware of what their convenient caffeine addiction has been doing one disposable cup at a time. By raising awareness and educating the public about reducing our coffee cup waste, consumers are more likely to make a more environmentally friendly decision as this could extend to other aspects of their lives as well; (van Birgelen, M., Semeijn, J., & Keicher, M. 2009). Interesting enough, even though one can be informed as to why they should make a conscious effort to be more environmentally friendly, there are different norms to consider. What is the motivator behind making that decision? It might be either a personal or social norms. For example, a person might use a reusable coffee mug for personal satisfaction, to feel better about themselves or because they feel pressured from others and need to live up to the standards in today’s world; (Thøgersen, J. 2009). Either way, there is a need to largely increase reusable cup awareness in the coffee sector of our world.

 If you have never thought about the environmental impact your throw away coffee cup has, then you probably also don’t realize the extreme amount of energy and resources that are used to manufacture the cups. It may help to understand the importance of ditching your to-go cup by becoming familiar with the manufacturing process of disposable cups. While you might agree that the cups are convenient, you may also agree that the reduction of almost 10 million trees a year to produce the discarded product may outweigh your convenience. A study shows that the estimated number of trees to be used for the manufacturing process of disposable cups will amount to 9.7 million in 2010; (Sustainability is Sexy, 2009). The stage of the life cycle of disposable cup starts with the wood growth and is followed by harvesting, but it does not stop there. Unfortunately, the process of producing the cups also includes the use of an extraordinary amount of water to clean the wood and also to create a pulp like stage. To give you an idea of the amount of water used to help in this process would be the equivalent of 8.5 thousand Olympic sized swimming pools, which equates to 5.7 billion gallons of water projected to be used in 2010; (Sustainability is Sexy, 2009). In an article that outlines the details of the manufacturing process, it includes vast amounts of transportation, the production of chemicals as well as coating materials, the coating process, the actual manufacturing of the cups followed by the production of packing materials to transport the cups; (Hakkinen, T., Vares, S. 2010). Granted, all reusable cups that are manufactured may go through an extreme process, using materials of which I am unsure of. A study found that a reusable cup need be only used a minimum of 10 times to make the environmental impact less than that of a single use cup; (Garrido, N., & Avarez Del Castilo, M. 2007). This demonstrates that it is more environmentally friendly to enforce the use of a reusable cup to eliminate the unnecessary harvesting of trees and consumption of water to manufacture disposable cups.

The coffee you were thinking about grabbing to-go today doesn’t sound so good anymore does it? Well, before you decide to ditch your to-go cup ritual, here’s one more fact that will definitely put the lid on it. Most disposable cups end up in a landfill since they cannot be recycled. Even though you might be through with your cup that once held your delicious white mocha, it doesn’t mean it’s necessarily through with you.  Your discarded cup will continue on by emitting methane gas into the atmosphere. Most methane is emitted from human related activities, landfills being the biggest; (Figueroa, V., Mackie, K., Guarriello, N., Cooper, D. 2009). Landfills are like giant trash cans, keeping our garbage that we can no longer store in our homes. In fact, so much of our trash winds up in landfills that they have become the second largest contributor to methane emissions both in the United States and worldwide; (De La Cruz, F., & Barlaz, M. 2010). The causes of methane emissions contribute to global warming, in which we may experience a change in the rainfall pattern, frequent hurricanes, and flooding. These factors can attribute to changes in agriculture, insect infestations, and a reduction in glacier mass; (Figueroa, V., Mackie, K., Guarriello, N., Cooper, D. 2009). Both methane gas and carbon dioxide flow from our landfills, although methane has roughly 21 times the effect of carbon dioxide over a hundred year period; (Garg, A., Achari, G., & Joshi, R. 2007). To give an example of how just one landfill, out of the 2300 landfills in the United States, can affect the environment, a 232 acre landfill in central Florida that currently uses 127 acres and serves over 300 residents in seven cities and receives 810 tons of waste per day emits 708 grams per second; (Figueroa, V., Mackie, K., Guarriello, N., Cooper, D. 2009). This case study goes to show that we are not only emitting awful toxins into our atmosphere, but we are also neglecting valuable space by doing so. Even though landfills contain items other than disposable cups, the cups do create a great amount of solid waste. A study found that the total amount of solid waste created by disposable cups would amount to 363 million pounds in 2010; (Sustainability is Sexy, 2009). That is 363 pounds of solid waste that could be kept from the landfills if reusable travel mugs were enforced more and people were made aware of the consequences of disposable cups.

The next time you travel to a coffee-cart, café, or any other business that sells coffee to-go, consider traveling with a reusable cup as well. Hopefully the above outlined downers of using a disposable cup will make you join the force against using single use cups. The efforts against using one time use cups needs to be enforced and made known to others to build awareness of the damages disposable cups can cause to the environment. This idea of building awareness needs to not only be spread by coffee consumers but by coffee distributors as well. People should encourage others around them to take advantage of the convenience of a reusable travel mug. Businesses too should enforce an environmentally friendly way of serving your highly desired coffee. On a side note, toss around the idea of purchasing a reusable travel mug that has some flair to show off your personality which will make you enjoy using it all the more. Travel mugs also make great gift ideas and while you are doing something nice for someone else, you are also doing something nice for the environment. A double bonus! Take what you have learned here and apply it to your everyday life. Keep the impact of using a single use cups at the top of your mind. Forget about recycling the coffee to-go cup you just used this morning, it will not work anyway. Let’s hold the cup instead of the whip and save the unnecessary energy used to manufacture the cups, keep them from taking up space in landfills, and contributing to global warming by emitting methane gas. It’s time for you to wake up and smell the coffee, without the to-go cup.

References:Bangalore, S., Parkar, S., & Messerli, F. (2007). “One” Cup of Coffee and Nuclear SPECT to Go. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 49(4), 528. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2006.10.044.Betts, K. (2008). Styrofoam: from packaging to picture frames and beyond. Environmental Science & Technology, 42(14), 5041. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

Carbonrally.com. (2007) De-cup Your Decaf.
Retrieved from http://www.carbonrally.com/challenges/12-Paper-Coffee-Cups

DE LA CRUZ, F., & BARLAZ, M. (2010). Estimation of Waste Component-Specific Landfill Decay Rates Using Lahoratory-Scale Decomposition Data. Environmental Science & Technology, 44(12), 4722-4728. doi:10.1021/es100240r.

Dunn, N. Wisebread.com. (2008) The Coffee Cup Revolution: Let’s Take a Stand.
Retrieved from http://www.wisebread.com/the-coffee-cup-revolution-lets-take-a-stand

Figueroa, V., Mackie, K., Guarriello, N., Cooper, D. (2009) A Robust Method for Estimating Landfill Methane Emissions. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 59:925-935. DOI:10.3155/1047-3289.59.8.925

Garg, A., Achari, G., & Joshi, R. (2007). Application of Fuzzy Logic to Estimate Flow of Methane for Energy Generation at a Sanitary Landfill. Journal of Energy Engineering, 133(4), 212-223. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9402(2007)133:4(212).

Garrido, N., & Avarez Del Castilo, M. (2007) Environmental Evaluation of Single-Use and Reusable Cups.                 International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 12(4), 252­-256. Doi:1065/lca2007.05.334.

Hakkinen, T., Vares, S. (2010) Environmental Impacts of Disposable Cups with Special Focus on the Effect of Material Choices and End of Life. Journal of Cleaner Production, 0959-6526. DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.05.005

Rome, N. (2002). Caffeine Nation; Is Coffee Beneficial Or Bad For Americans?                                  Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/14/sunday/main529388.shtml

Sovová, K., Ferus, M., Matulková, I., Španěl, P., Dryahina, K., Dvořák, O., et al. (2008). A study of thermal decomposition and combustion products of disposable polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic using high resolution fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, selected ion flow tube mass spectrometry and gas chromatography mass.. Molecular Physics, 106(9/10), 1205-1214. doi:10.1080/00268970802077876.

Sustainability is sexy. (2009). The Basic Problems With Coffee Cups.                                                   Retrieved from http://www.sustainabilityissexy.com/facts.html

The Recycle Gal. (2010). Recycle Life LLC.
                Retrieved from http://www.recygal.com/2010/02/28/disposable-cups-recycling-one-drink-at-a-time/

Thøgersen, J. (2009). The Motivational Roots of Norms for Environmentally Responsible Behavior. Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 31(4), 348-362. doi:10.1080/01973530903317144.

van Birgelen, M., Semeijn, J., & Keicher, M. (2009). Packaging and Proenvironmental Consumption Behavior: Investigating Purchase and Disposal Decisions for Beverages. Environment & Behavior, 41(1), 125-146. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database. (American Psychological Assoc.)

Research Final Draft: This Drill Won’t Cause a Spill; Oil Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

                 Does 7.14 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil seem like an immense amount (Baldwin, Gelb, Derner, 2006)? That is because 7.14 billion barrels of oil is an enormous amount. It also represents a highly significant amount of domestic production potential. That is the projected amount of barrels a day that could be drilled in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge [ANWR]. So, why is there no drilling there currently and why is there the huge concern and controversy over drilling in this oil abundant area? Perhaps because ANWR is home to thousands of caribou during calving season, is close to the Arctic Ocean, and consists of miles of rugged Alaskan tundra. Although there is much controversy and concern over drilling for oil in ANWR, drilling will not negatively affect the environment because the land will be protected, the wildlife will be preserved, and drilling will leave a small environmental footprint.

            In 1960, ANWR was founded. In 1980, more acres were added to the refuge, and oil development was mostly banned in the area (Gelb, 2006).  ANWR is actually divided up into three different areas by law: the “Refuge”, “Wilderness”, and the “10-02” area. In the south is the “Refuge” land, and in the center is the “Wilderness” land. These two regions take up 17.16 million acres out of the total 19.6 million acres. There is absolutely no drilling or exploration allowed in these two areas. In the northern region of ANWR is the “10-02” area. It is actually called this because in section 10-02 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, Congress designated this area for oil exploration (“What,” n.d.). It is interesting that such controversy over drilling the land is apparent today, despite the fact that in 1980 the “10-02” area was clearly designated by Congress for that exact purpose.

            ANWR covers an astounding 19 million acres, which is larger than some entire states in America. The actual area where oil development would take place is only 12,000 acres (Young, 1995). That may seem like a lot, but it is not when put into perspective.  Don Young, congressional representative from Alaska, had a great example when he explained that 12,000 acres is the amount of land taken up by the Dulles Airport in Washington D.C. Essentially drilling in ANWR would only affect as much land as building an airport in the Refuge (Young, 1995). This drilling in the area the size of an airport would create anywhere from 86,000 to 245,000 jobs for Alaskans and Americans (Gelb, 2006). Building an airport uses taxpayer’s money, but drilling for oil is all privately funded, therefore creating these jobs and revenue for the state of Alaska doesn’t cost Americans a dime (Inhofe, 2009). There are not many projects that can boast that kind of numbers, with such little impact and price to taxpayers.

            In mainstream America there is a vision of ANWR being a rugged, mountainous, pristine area. The “10-02” area doesn’t fit that description at all. It is miles and miles of barren tundra, with no trees, and covered with snow most of the year (Bachmann, 2008). The coastal plain of the “10-02” area is not pristine; it has roads, villages, and military outposts. Also due to the large amount of oil located in the area, there is some crude oil in the water and on the beaches (Venegas, 2008). This is a natural occurrence for the land and has not affected the wildlife negatively. If proper measures are taken, drilling in ANWR should not disturb the land or the wildlife.

            ANWR is host to many different wildlife species year round, including birds, polar bears, and caribou (“Study,” 2004). The main concerns from environmentalists are usually raised over the caribou in the north, especially since caribou calving season takes place in ANWR. There are two herds of caribou that migrate through ANWR; the Porcupine caribou herd and the Central Arctic caribou herd. The Central Arctic herd is estimated to include 32,000 caribou, and they usually occupy the west side of ANWR. The Porcupine caribou herd is estimated to include 123,000 caribou. This herd migrates to the northern section of ANWR in March. In May the pregnant females are first seen on the slope, and by late May calving season has begun in the north. In late July the herd has moved off the slope and into other areas of Alaska and Canada (“Caribou,” n.d.). Since the caribou are only in the Refuge during the summer, drilling can be done in the winter to limit the affect on the caribou during the summer (Venegas, 2008).

            Every calving season, the caribou females are known to have their calves in specific areas. In these specific calving areas there are five proposed drilling sites that are thought to have oil and gas potential. Only two of these prospects are thought to have significant oil potential, although all five sites would be drilled for exploration purposes. Even though drilling should not harm the caribou calving habits, there is the possible proposal for excluding these five sensitive drilling prospects from the ANWR development project. If these five areas were excluded from drilling, the entire ANWR project is still estimated to retrieve 770 million barrels of oil during the production phase of the project. This will still provide a tremendous amount of oil and gas, while eliminating drilling in the most sensitive caribou habitats (Powell, 1991). Although there is much concern over caribou calving habitats, there is also concern over many other animals living in ANWR.

            Along with caribou, the coastal plain of Northern Alaska is home to many polar bears. Pregnant mother polar bears build dens out of snow and ice on the coast, and then have their cubs about halfway through the winter. Most activity in the oil development area would happen in the winter, which is the very same time polar bear cubs are birthed. Like other possible environmental issues associated with oil development, this potential problem can be taken care of with technology and careful planning. The use of incredibly detailed landscape photography and ground-truth sampling has enabled scientists to identify 91.5% of polar bear dens on the coastal plain (Derner, Amstrup, Ambrosius, 2006). Using this information, oil developers can limit their activities to non-den areas so as to minimize the disturbances to all polar bears.

            The caribou, whales, and other animals are needed by the Alaska Natives in the North to provide their subsistence lifestyle. The government knows and recognizes this need, which is why proper rules and regulations can be put into place to protect the wildlife from the dangers of drilling. If drilling in ANWR was permitted, it would take about 9 or 10 years for the drilling to actually begin (“Study,”2004). This gives adequate time to make sure that all drilling can be done completely safely. The Anchorage Daily News Miner stated that “the industry can do it right—especially when held accountable by governments and citizens who demand that no corners be cut, that the best available technology be the norm, and that maximizing profits never trumps care for safety and the environment” (“Keep,” 2010).

            Don Young puts it best when he said, “The caribou herd that migrates through the existing Prudhoe Bay oil field has tripled since development began 20 years ago. Alaskans have done such a good job protecting wildlife that there has not been one death of any animal because of oil development there” (Young, 1995). The simple fact is that the caribou herd near Prudhoe Bay is only there part of the year and they have not been affected. Not only have the caribou been undisturbed, they have actually thrived since the oil drilling began there. The entire Prudhoe Bay oil development project has not negatively affected the wildlife after all these years. Therefore, these new operations in ANWR, utilizing better technology, and better planning will definitely not disturb the wildlife. If there is adequate time to develop stringent rules and regulations, drilling can be very safe for all animals.

            The environmental footprint in any refuge is very important. This is the area that will be directly affected by exploration and drilling for oil. Over the past few years, methods of oil discovery and retrieval have been developed and improved tremendously. Due to these advances in equipment, technology, and retrieval methods, the surface footprint of drilling for oil has been dramatically reduced (Gelb, 2006). The environmental footprint in any refuge should have restrictions and laws in order to protect the land.

            In ANWR, this type of legislation has been in effect since 1980. That legislation created the “10-02” area of ANWR, which contains 1.5 million acres and was originally designated for oil exploration. Congress narrowed the environmental footprint even more by only allowing 2,000 acres to be affected by actual drilling in this region. Simply put that is .05% of ANWR as a whole (“What,” n.d.). Overall that is a very small footprint, and oil developers may not even disrupt all of those 2,000 acres with the utilization of new technology. Some claims by environmentalists have said that no intrusion at all on the land is justified. In a world where humans and wildlife have to coexist, it is impossible to never disrupt an animal. Sometimes the end justifies the means, but this oil drilling would have such a small environmental footprint that the disruption is insignificant.

            Many people believe that oil exploration will disturb a large quantity of land. However utilizing new technology advances, the amount of earth disturbed for mere exploration can be diminished. The use of low-altitude aeromagnetic reconnaissance can determine where oil and gas prospects are. Essentially this system utilizes an airplane with special equipment that flies low above the ground and can detect variations in the earth’s magnetic field. This data can then be transferred to computers to project likely prospects. Using low-altitude aeromagnetic reconnaissance technology is inexpensive and precise, and will increase the amount of revenue from drilling. Using this technology and other new innovations will be very useful in limiting ground disturbance (Donovan, Hendricks, Roberts, Eliason, 1984).

            These new innovations in locating oil reserves limit ground disturbance in a few ways. For each separate drilling site, a pad must be put into place. These drilling pads cause some ground disturbance. The more precise oil locating technology will limit the need for construction of these pads, which will result in less ground disturbance. Each pad has a certain amount of employees that operate the pad, and these employees all need ways to travel back and forth from the pad. The fewer production pads, the fewer gravel roads and airstrips are needed near the drilling sites. Another new technique that will be used in the project is re-injecting waste products. In old drilling projects the natural wastes from drilling oil were put in pits. Re-injecting the wastes from drilling into the old drilling shaft eliminates the needs for pits that would disturb the land. The reduction in gravel roads, need for fewer pads, and re-injection of wastes all create a smaller footprint for the ANWR oil development project.

            There are misconceptions about drilling in ANWR, and naysayers discourage people from seeing its possible potential. Congress has designated the “10-02” section specifically for economic development, especially oil and gas exploration (Everett, 2002). However, in the years since, Congress has blocked the drilling. Despite this, Congress recently allowed research groups to remove ice cores in the “Wilderness” zone using heavy machinery (Bluemink, 2008). If Congress will allow this type of disruption in the “Wilderness” zone, then why won’t they allow exploration in the developmental “10-02” zone? Even the development in the “10-02” zone is minimal, only a fraction of the total land area of ANWR. Congress needs to realize that if proper safety rules and regulations are put into place and enforced; there can be environmentally safe drilling in ANWR. Drilling in the “10-02” section will not negatively affect the environment, because the drilling can be completed with a small environmental footprint that protects both the land and the wildlife.    

References:
Bachmann, M. (2008). ANWR Needed to Cut Cost of Gas. Human Events, 64(26), 1-6. Retrieved October 10, 2010, from http://content.ebscohost.com/

Baldwin, P., Gelb, B., & Corn, L. (2006, July 7). Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Controversies for the 109th Congress. CRS Report for Congress. Retrieved November 18, 2010, from http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207

Baldwin, P., Gelb, B., & Corn, L. (2001). Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: The Next Chapter. CRS Report for Congress. Retrieved December 8, 2010, from www2.bren.ucsb.edu/

Bluemink, E. (2008, August 4). Clue to the Past Climates and Hint of Future are Hidden in the ANWR Ice. Anchorage Daily News. Retrieved October 11, 2011, from http://content.ebscohost.com/

Caribou in ANWR. (n.d.). ANWR. Retrieved October 11, 2010, from http://www.anwr.org/backgrnd/caribou

Donovan, T., Hendricks, J., Roberts, A., & Eliason, P. (1984). Low-altitude Aeromagnetic Reconnaissance for Petroleum in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska. Geophysics, 49(8). Retrieved December 7, 2010, from http://scitation.aip.org/

Everett, L. (2002). The Controversy over Economic Development within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. American Geophysical Union, 12. Retrieved November 18, 2010, from http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/

Derner, G., Amstrup, S., & Ambrosius, K. (2006). Polar Bear Maternal Den Habitat in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Arctic Institute of North America, 59(1), 31-36. Retrieved November 18, 2010, from http://arctic.synergiesprairies.ca/arctic/index.php/arctic/article/view/361/0

Gelb, B. (2006). ANWR Development: Economic Impacts. ncseonline.org. Retrieved October 11, 2010, from http://content.ebscohost.com/

Inhofe, J. (2009). Pork-Filled Stimulus Bill Fails to Tackle Real Energy Issues. Human Events, 65(5), 1-10. Retrieved October 11, 2010, from http://content.ebscohost.com/

Keep ANWR in Play. (2010, May 11). Anchorage Daily News. Retrieved October 10, 2010, from http://content.ebscohost.com/

Powell, S. (1991). A Risk Analysis of Oil Development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Energy Journal, 12(3), 55. Retrieved December 7, 2010, from http://ksuweb.kennesaw.edu/

Study: ANWR oil would have little impact – U.S. news – Environment – msnbc.com. (2004). msnbc. Retrieved October 11, 2010, from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542853/

Venegas, S. (2008). A Bright Green Light for ANWR Oil. BusinessWeek. Retrieved October 11, 2010, from http://www.businessweek.com/

What is ANWR and where is it?. (n.d.). ANWR. Retrieved October 10, 2010, from http://www.anwr.org/ANWR-Basics/What-is-ANWR-and-where-is-it.php

Young, D. (1995). Oil Exploration can be a Boon to Alaskans and Environment. Christian Science Monitor, 87(223), 18. Retrieved October 11, 2010, from http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy